If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

For those that haven't noticed, all Phoronix news is not written very seriously... if there's a Linux event/news that's also funny, entertaining, weird, or interesting, it also sometimes gets mentioned - especially if it's going to lead into an interesting forum discussion. Note that this article is titled "A New Open-Source License..." and begins with "Some user, after having..." I certainly don't think Maximal will be overtaking the GPL anytime soon

If there is anything but querulants here, have a look at my thinking here, where I actually detail some of the happenings around this. I wrote this licence after realizing RMS associated idolaterous religion, and unreasonable thinking (open source is not open source etc) with this.

Catch 22

Well, the legal issue is a bit of a catch 22. Because if something ends up in court, it basically comes down to "But these are the terms which you have read and agreed to."

But now, we have the situation that for a lisence agreement to stand up in court it has to be so complicated that no one can understand the agreement that "they agreed too". But, if you make it simpler and shorter, like this lisense, people might actually read AND understand it. But, then it won't hold up in court.

Personally, I think that it should become an international law, that each and every single lisense agreement has a short layman's explanation at the top of what they're basically agreeing too. That way, ordinary users know what they are agreeing too, and if it does turn into a law-suit the laywers can throw the specific detailed clauses at each other to their heart's content.